Abstract
Our study explored the impact of a 4-week, daily lovingkindness meditation practice on students’ levels of hope and emotional intelligence. Our findings indicated no statistically significant difference between treatment and waitlist control groups in students’ reported levels of hope and emotional intelligence. However, when students’ frequency of practice was included in the model, the results showed that the between-subjects effects were significant. We offer implications for school counseling practice and future research.
Introduction
The developmental stage of adolescence provides natural and unique challenges for students, with increased risk for mental health concerns, hopelessness, suicidality, and general threats to well-being (Hawes et al., 2021; Hertz & Barrios, 2021). School counselors seek approaches that help students navigate these developmental and contextual challenges. An area that continues to grow in research and practice is the implementation of contemplative practices in the school setting (Davidson et al., 2012; Kielty et al., 2017). Contemplative practices (e.g., mindfulness, meditation, breathwork, centering) show promise for the reduction of risk factors and the promotion of well-being for individuals across the lifespan (Brown et al., 2013; Farb et al., 2015; Felver et al., 2015; Hofmann et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2021; Oman et al., 2008); they are grounded in awareness and connection to self, others, and a greater purpose (Contemplative Life, 2024). Authors have suggested that contemplative practices strengthen personal resources relevant to optimal adolescent development (Benson et al., 2012; Chapman et al., 2021; Debnam et al., 2018; Fox et al., 2017).
Over the past decade, scholars have advocated for the implementation of school-based contemplative practices to promote optimal well-being outcomes for students and school communities (Greenberg & Harris, 2012; Kielty et al., 2017; Morgan, 2015; Napora, 2017; Roeser & Pinela, 2014; Shapiro et al., 2015). Mindfulness interventions have gained support for their effectiveness in promoting students’ emotional regulation, prosocial behaviors, attention, and the reduction of mental health symptoms (e.g., depression and anxiety) and behavior concerns (Phan et al., 2022). However, mindfulness-based activities are only one of many pathways for contemplative practice, and researchers have suggested that mindfulness practices alone may not support individuals’ intrapersonal and interpersonal factors in ways that compassion-based contemplative practices can (Hafenbrack et al., 2022). One example of a compassion-based contemplative practice is lovingkindness meditation (LKM); studies of LKM indicate positive intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes (Hafenbrack et al., 2022; Kearney et al., 2014; Leppma & Young, 2016; Masters-Waage et al., 2022; Telke et al., 2022; Totzek et al., 2020). Studies of LKM have primarily focused on samples of adult participants, and studies of LKM as a school-based activity are limited. In the literature on contemplative-based practices, hope and emotional intelligence have emerged as possible outcomes (Catalino et al., 2014; Davidson et al., 2012; Dorais et al., 2024; Munoz et al., 2018), each of which is related to improved well-being in adolescence (Lenz, 2021; Llamas-Diaz et al., 2022). Thus, we sought to conduct an initial study to examine the impact of an LKM practice on students’ hope and emotional intelligence.
Hope
Snyder (2002) conceptualized hope as a goal-oriented process featuring two necessary and integrated elements: pathways and agency. An individual explores pathways by imagining and creating directions toward their goals; agency involves the motivation to follow self-identified directions to achieve goals (Snyder, 2002; Snyder et al., 1991). Snyder et al. (1997) defined hope in childhood as “a cognitive set involving the beliefs in one’s capabilities to produce workable routes to goals (the pathways component), as well as the self-related beliefs about initiating and sustaining movement toward those goals (the agency component)” (p. 401). Hope relates to students’ perception of themselves and the world around them and enhances their progress toward goals and well-being (Snyder et al., 1997).
Scholars have suggested that hope serves as a predictor of a person’s academic, psychosocial, personal, and professional growth (Bressler et al., 2010; Lenz, 2021; Snyder, 2002). When students have higher levels of hope, they can set goals and take appropriate risks toward achieving their goals (Bressler et al., 2010). Hope not only reduces risk factors for adolescents but also increases prosocial behaviors and engagement in school (Padilla-Walker et al., 2011). Further, hope may also predict adolescents’ level of life satisfaction (Marques et al., 2013). Scholars have proposed hope-facilitating practices as potentially beneficial to incorporate into school counseling, particularly for adolescents navigating life challenges (Akos & Kurz, 2016; Pedrotti et al., 2008). Incorporating school counseling strategies that foster students’ hope may help to promote their resilience in response to adversity (Leung et al., 2017). Related factors to hope may include interpersonal skills (Leung et al., 2017) like emotional intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence
Salovey and Mayer (1990) coined the term emotional intelligence (EI), defining it as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p. 189). As such, EI is both an intrapersonal and interpersonal process and comprises both verbal and nonverbal appraisal (Mayer & Salovey, 1993; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). One must be able to identify, communicate, and regulate their emotions while also processing similar information from those around them. In their first model of EI, Salovey and Mayer (1990) included three branches of emotional intelligence: (a) appraisal and expression of emotion (in self and others); (b) regulation of emotion (in self and others); and (c) utilization of emotion to promote flexible planning, creative thinking, attention, and motivation. Over the decades, the conceptual understanding of EI has developed with growing literature. Mayer and Salovey (1995) expanded upon their initial model of EI and described a four-branch, hierarchical model of EI, including (a) accurately perceiving emotions in oneself and others, (b) using emotions to facilitate thinking, (c) knowing emotional meanings, and (d) managing emotions. Through strengthened EI, individuals learn to navigate their emotional and social experiences with competence.
For adolescents, scholars have found that EI correlates with increased prosocial behaviors (Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002) and increased levels of happiness (Guerra-Bustamante et al., 2019). In their study of adolescents aged 12 to 18 years old, Cejudo and colleagues (2018) measured participants’ EI, stress, and social anxiety; their findings indicated that adolescents with higher levels of EI reported lower levels of stress and social anxiety compared with students who scored in the lower ranges of EI. Based on their findings, Cejudo et al. posited that EI is predictive of adolescent well-being. Thus, techniques designed to enhance adolescents’ EI strategies may help them to improve relational skills and emotional growth (Cejudo et al., 2018).
Lovingkindness Meditation
LKM is a compassion-based contemplative practice in which practitioners extend thoughts of compassion inwardly toward themselves and outwardly toward individuals and groups (Salzberg, 1995). LKM offers several benefits for individuals of varying identities and needs, including increased social connection and emotional regulation (Fredrickson et al., 2008; Hutcherson et al., 2008; Leung et al., 2013). LKM practices have been implemented and studied with varying adult populations, often with positive interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes (Kearney et al., 2014; Leppma & Young, 2016; Masters-Waage et al., 2022; Telke et al., 2022; Totzeck et al., 2020). LKM may be effective in reducing symptoms and strengthening key psychosocial factors in ways that mindfulness practices do not (Hafenbrack et al., 2022). However, despite its many indicated benefits, LKM research has been heavily focused on adult populations. Studies of LKM with youth are minimal, and studies of LKM in the school setting are scarce. In the present study, we sought to examine the impact of a brief, daily, school-based LKM practice on adolescents’ hope and emotional intelligence.
The American School Counselor Association’s ASCA National Model (2019) underscores the importance of school counselors’ use of evidence-based practices and interventions that can provide opportunities for evaluation and accountability. Common evidence-based practices that emphasize the promotion of protective factors include character education (Watson, 2006) and social/emotional learning (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2022). Both character education and social/emotional learning emphasize the intrapersonal and interpersonal development of students for promoting overall success. Similarly, LKM mirrors the prioritization of youths’ intrapersonal and interpersonal development, particularly CASEL’s competencies such as self-management, social awareness, and relationship skills (CASEL, 2022). School counselors may find LKM to be a natural complement to their comprehensive school counseling programming and a helpful mechanism for promoting students’ social/emotional learning outcomes.
When contemplative interventions have been measured in school settings, they most often come in the form of mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., Black & Fernando, 2014; Segal et al., 2021). The examination of other varieties of contemplative practices is limited, and few researchers have examined the impact of an LKM-based intervention on youth (e.g., Tellhed et al., 2022). Testing a daily LKM intervention within schools on students’ levels of emotional intelligence and hope could provide school counselors with a deeper understanding of ways contemplative practice might be useful in the school setting to strengthen students’ social/emotional resources. Considering the importance of students’ social/emotional development to comprehensive school counseling programming (ASCA, 2021), LKM may be a useful practice for school counselors to employ with students.
Study Purpose
The effectiveness of school counseling service delivery relies on evidence-based practices (Dimmitt & Zyromski, 2020; Zyromski & Dimmitt, 2022), yet school counseling intervention research is limited (Griffith et al., 2019). To address the limited school counselor interventions, we created the LKM intervention described in this study by drawing on theory and research showing that contemplative practices effectively support youth. However, the intervention is new and needs to be evaluated to understand its effectiveness with school-aged youth. Therefore, we designed our study to provide an initial understanding of LKM as a school-counselor-facilitated intervention. The present study examined the effects of a daily, school-based LKM practice on adolescents’ hope and emotional intelligence. The research question guiding the study was: Does engagement in a daily lovingkindness meditation practice show a statistically significant impact on students’ reported levels of hope and emotional intelligence compared to a waitlist control group, when comparing pre-, mid-, and post-test scores?
Method
We completed all procedures following approval from our Institutional Review Board. We used a convenience sampling method and contacted school counselors and administrators at public, parochial, and alternative education school sites around the United States to participate in the present study. Of those approached, administrators at three alternative education sites within the same district in a Southeastern metropolitan area expressed agreement with participating in the study. Students were enrolled at the alternative education school sites based on self-referral, parent referral, or referral from their previous school setting. The alternative education sites prioritized curricula to promote students’ emotional intelligence and a sense of purpose in life, with opportunities for academic credit recovery toward graduation. Overall enrollment at each school site was small, with approximately 50 to 100 students enrolled at each school. The student population at each site was demographically similar, and none of the schools had previously implemented LKM programs in their curricula prior to the present study.
We conducted a quasi-experimental, nonequivalent control group study with 35 students enrolled at three alternative education middle and high school sites. Nonequivalent control group design includes an experimental and control group with measures at multiple time points (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Rather than random assignment, nonequivalent control group design employs naturally assembled groups, such as in classes or school settings (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). As such, participants in this study were assigned to a treatment group (n = 17) or waitlist control group (n = 18) based on their school site to mitigate potential disruption to their school setting.
A priori power analysis through G*Power indicated that, with an alpha of .05, power at 80%, and moderate effect size, an adequate sample size would be a minimum of 34 students. We contacted 201 students at three separate school sites and provided teachers at all sites with informed consent forms to share with students and their guardians. Further, school administrators contacted guardians through email and text messages via the school’s communication platform. Parents and guardians who did not provide consent were instructed to select the option to opt out, sign, and return the consent form to their school administrators. Administrators provided the students who opted out of the study with an alternative educational activity. The final sample of students who completed surveys at all three time points included 17 students from the treatment group and 18 students from the waitlist control group, for a total of 35 students, meeting a priori power and resulting in a 17.5% response rate. Although we met a priori power requirements, our ultimate sample size was small due to attrition throughout the intervention; therefore, the findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution.
Participants
Demographic Data of Final Sample.
Note. Participants were able to select more than one racial and ethnic identity.
Measures
Demographic Questionnaire
We included a demographic questionnaire for participants to report their race, ethnicity, gender, age, and grade level. For participants in the treatment group, an additional item asked participants to indicate how frequently they engaged in the daily LKM practice.
Children’s Hope Scale
The CHS (Snyder et al., 1997) is a six-item self-report measure designed for youth aged 8–16. Snyder and colleagues (1997) defined hope as a composite of agency and pathways-orientated thinking. As such, the CHS includes a two-factor model with subscales of Agency and Pathways. In the current study, the scores on the CHS demonstrated good internal consistency at all three time points. At timepoint one (T1) Cronbach’s alpha was .83; at T2, Cronbach’s alpha was .86; and at T3, Cronbach’s alpha was .85, suggesting good reliability. The mean scale score of the CHS across both groups at T1 was 24.38 (SD = 6.85), with total scale scores ranging from 7 to 36. The mean scale score across both groups at T2 was 24.62 (SD = 7.02), and total scale scores ranged from 6 to 36. The mean scale score across both groups at T3 was 23.9 (SD = 6.3), with total scale scores ranging from 15 to 36.
Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale
The BEIS-10 (Davies et al., 2010) is a 10-item self-report measure designed to capture five factors of EI: (a) appraisal of own emotions, (b) appraisal of others’ emotions, (c) regulation of own emotions, (d) regulation of others’ emotions, and (e) utilization of emotion. Davies and colleagues defined EI based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) model of five elements of adaptive cognitive abilities. At all three time points, the BEIS-10 demonstrated good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas of .83 (T1), .90 (T2), and .87 (T3). The mean scale score of the BEIS-10 across both groups at T1 was 37.30 (SD = 7.30), with total scale scores ranging from 11 to 50. The mean scale score of the BEIS-10 across both groups at T2 was 36.50 (SD = 8.39), and total scale scores ranged from 16 to 50. Finally, the mean scale score across both groups at T3 was 35.28 (SD = 7.71), with total scores ranging from 16 to 50.
Exit Survey Process Questions
Our study also included researcher-created process questions to allow participants to share their thoughts about the practice. In response to our question, “What comments do you have about the practice?”, students submitted responses in text-entry format.
Procedures
We employed a pre- and post-test nonequivalent control group quasi-experimental design measuring the naturally assembled experimental and waitlist control groups using the scales at three time points: pre-intervention (T1), mid-intervention (T2), and post-intervention (T3). Students completed the surveys 2 sequential school weeks apart. We decided to implement the intervention for a total of 4 school weeks based on the practical needs of the school setting, and on findings in the literature indicating that even brief and short-term LKM practices can result in optimal outcomes (e.g., Hutcherson et al., 2008; Stell & Farsides, 2016). First, we created a Google Classroom for students with access to the surveys for all participants; students in the treatment group were also provided access to recordings of a 10-minute, guided LKM practice designed and recorded by the researchers and adapted from Salzberg (1995). The 10-minute LKM practice was offered daily for 4 weeks. Teachers provided students with 10 minutes during the school day at the same time each day to listen to the recordings and engage independently through Google Classroom on their own devices. We also provided teachers with access to the recordings and encouraged them to engage in the activity alongside the students.
The treatment group students completed measures at the three scheduled time points. Students in the waitlist control group completed surveys at the same time points but did not receive the intervention; the waitlist control group received access to the LKM practices after the conclusion of data collection (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). To ensure that the measures captured students’ outcomes solely because of the LKM intervention, students did not engage in conversation immediately following the intervention sessions. After the time designated for the 10-minute LKM practice, the students resumed academic activities. We provided school-based facilitators at each school with a list of numeric codes assigned to each student to maintain students’ confidentiality. Students used their assigned code when entering their survey responses to associate each round of survey completion. All responses were anonymized, and no identifying information was kept with students’ survey responses.
Lovingkindness Intervention
The LKM intervention is a daily contemplative practice whereby students are guided through a meditation-based activity by watching a recorded video under the supervision of an educator or staff member. The videos are watched individually (on a computer with headphones) but can be viewed in small or large groups. The intervention (i.e., videos and prompts) is housed in Google Classroom, overseen by the intervention facilitator. Within the LKM intervention recordings, the students practiced the elements of (a) concentration, (b) breath awareness, (c) mindful awareness, (d) eliciting a sense of compassion for self and others, and (e) repetition of phrases. The elements of concentration, breath awareness, and mindful awareness occurred sequentially in the initial 2 minutes of the recording. They were intended to help center and focus students’ attention on the present moment. The recording then guided students to extend positive affirmations toward themselves through the phrases “May I be happy, may I be healthy, may I be at ease.” The recording then asked students to consider various individuals in their lives (e.g., self, a friend, a family member, someone they admire, someone they know or do not know) and extend positive affirmations towards the identified others through the phrases “May you be happy, may you be healthy, may you be at ease.” Students practiced these components in each daily practice for the 4-week intervention.
Treatment Fidelity
We designed the intervention to be delivered directly by a school counselor or by an educator or school staff member who is supported by a school counselor. School counselors hold unique and advanced skills to deliver the intervention. However, utilizing this as a program that any educator can implement with a school counselor’s support increases the program’s dissemination because it does not require the school counselor to implement it in each classroom. To achieve these aims, the program facilitation is completely asynchronous and automated, and the intervention facilitator provides a supporting role and ensures the space and time needed to complete the intervention.
The schools that participated in the current study do not employ school counselors. Therefore, the first author, a certified school counselor with school counseling experience in K–12 settings, collaborated directly with on-site teachers to facilitate the intervention. Collaboration between school counselors and teachers is critical for intervention implementation (Limberg et al., 2021; Mariani et al., 2016). With this in mind, the first author intentionally mirrored the collaborative process with teachers to create the intervention materials and co-facilitate implementing the LKM intervention. To enhance treatment fidelity, we used Google Classroom platforms and provided teachers with training on the intervention, an implementation guide, and an instructional video for facilitators before the intervention and study. We also engaged in ongoing communication and the first author conducted weekly virtual check-ins with teachers to monitor the intervention’s progress and support the intervention implementation.
Analytic Plan
We cleaned and screened the data prior to analysis. Data were downloaded from Qualtrics and placed into SPSS (version 28). We checked for incomplete surveys by examining the data for valid and missing cases and deleted records of any students who indicated they did not want to participate in the study (i.e., assent). We reviewed the data at all points in time to assess for missing data. We conducted Little’s MCAR to confirm that the data were missing completely at random and deleted cases listwise for students who started but did not complete the survey at any point. The resulting final sample included a total of 35 cases, with 17 cases assigned to the treatment group and 18 assigned to the waitlist control group. We tested the data to confirm that no violations of statistical assumptions were present, including normality, linearity, multicollinearity and singularity, homogeneity of variance, and sphericity (Leech et al., 2015; Pallant, 2020).
Results
Data Analysis
Main Effects of Repeated Measures MANOVA.
Treatment and Comparison Group Means, Standard Deviations, and Mean Change From Pre-Test to Post-Test Scores for CHS and BEIS-10.
Note. CHS = Children’s Hope Scale; BEIS-10 = Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale-10.
aChange in mean reflects change from pretest (T1) to posttest (T3) scores.
We also examined the students’ reported frequency of practice to test whether change occurred as a result of students’ level of engagement. In the survey at T3, the participants reported their estimated frequency of engaging in the LKM practice per week from 0 (for none at all; 0 days) to 4 (for daily; all days each week). Two respondents (11%) in the treatment group indicated they did not engage in practice any day per week. Of the students who indicated they participated to some extent, 18% (n = 3) reported they practiced infrequently; 35% (n = 6) reported they practiced somewhat frequently each week; 11% (n = 2) reported practicing frequently each week; and 24% (n = 4) reported practicing daily each week. Repeated measures MANOVA with the frequency practice included as a between-subjects factor indicated that the between-subjects effects for frequency of practice were significant at the p < .05 level with large effect size, F(4, 29) = 3.53, p = .02, partial eta squared = .33. The finding echoes previous meditation research indicating that frequency of practice is significantly related to meditation outcomes, particularly for well-being indicators (Fredrickson et al., 2019; Levin et al., 2014; Montero-Marin et al., 2022). Finally, we examined students’ responses to the exit survey process questions to gather student perception data. Some students reported that the treatment was “helpful” and 60% of students who responded indicated that the practice was positive, helped with positive emotions, or described the practice as “calming.” Two students reported that the practice induced sleep, which may be considered a barrier to their ability to fully engage in the practice. No students provided suggestions for changes or improvements to the practice. The results suggest some influence between the LKM practice and students’ reported outcomes, particularly regarding treatment frequency; however, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to limitations in sample size at each frequency level. Further examination of the LKM practice with larger sample sizes may show more robust outcomes.
Discussion
The results indicate that the implementation of a daily, 4-week LKM-based intervention did not result in a statistically significant difference between treatment and waitlist control groups or in students’ reported outcomes from T1 to T3 on hope or emotional intelligence. These nonsignificant findings are similar to previous studies of LKM interventions in which results were mixed (Fredrickson et al., 2017; Masters-Waage et al., 2022) or nonsignificant from pre- to post-test (Apsy & Proeve, 2017). The present study’s nonsignificant findings may be the result of varying influences, including treatment design or external factors and events. Research regarding LKM-based interventions with youth is particularly scarce; the limited existing empirical support combined with the nonsignificant findings of the current study may suggest that LKM does not developmentally match the needs or cognitions of adolescents.
Although findings between the treatment and waitlist control groups yielded nonsignificance, we found statistical significance in an examination of students’ frequency of practice. At T3, treatment group participants reported their estimated frequency of engagement in the LKM practice each week. Further, when students indicated they had engaged in the practice on a daily basis, their outcomes for hope and EI scales increased from T1 to T3. When students indicated they had practiced with mixed engagement (from 0 days to 3–4 days per week), their outcomes from T1 to T3 minimally increased, and sometimes decreased. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes and nonequivalent sample sizes between groups at each level of frequency.
The findings of the present study appear to echo mixed results found in previous studies regarding school-based contemplation. In a randomized controlled trial, Montero-Marin and colleagues (2022) examined the benefits of school-based mindfulness training and found mixed benefits. In particular, students with barriers to engagement (e.g., mental health challenges or societal difficulties) did not benefit from the mindfulness training and sometimes showed potential contraindications (Montero-Marin et al., 2022). This is of particular relevance to the present study, in which the sample was comprised entirely of students in alternative education. Students in alternative education have a higher risk for mental health concerns and societal barriers than the general population (Aron, 2006; Kew-Simpson et al., 2023; Mullen & Lambie, 2013). This consideration may offer an explanation for the high rate of attrition and the mixed results found in the present study. Similarly, Montero-Marin et al. (2022) also noted that students’ consistent engagement in practice was low, which is similar to some of the reported levels of engagement in the LKM practice in the present study.
To reflect the invitatory nature of contemplative practices, the present study’s LKM intervention was optional for students, and the level of engagement varied for students in the sample. Varying student engagement may have also reflected the intervention design. When designing school-based intervention studies, researchers should expect that natural interruptions will occur that will impact the outcome. However, certain approaches may mitigate the risk of attrition. Face-to-face modalities rather than online implementation tend to work more effectively for maintaining engagement in an intervention (Clarke et al., 2015) and reduce challenges with internet access or power outages. Further, incentives for students or classrooms could be provided to promote student engagement in the treatment and surveys. Individuals planning school-based interventions should preemptively consider these elements of intervention design to create optimal parameters for students’ success with the intervention.
Implications for School Counseling
The findings of the present study hold implications for school counselors in several ways. The implementation of school-based interventions relies on collaboration. The present study demonstrated ways school counseling practitioner researchers may collaborate with teachers in developing intervention materials and supporting teachers’ intervention implementation in the classroom. Beyond providing interventions to students directly, school counselors can also empower teachers to implement SEL-related interventions in the course of their school day and classroom culture. This study’s 10-minute, teacher-facilitated LKM intervention demonstrates how school counselors and school counseling researchers can work collaboratively with teachers to facilitate the adoption of brief, accessible, daily interventions. The current study’s findings appear to highlight the efficacy of daily integration. In the current study, the LKM practice appeared most effective when students engaged daily; educators and school counselors may be able to find creative ways to incorporate contemplative practice into their daily routines with students, such as during morning meeting times, daily announcements, check-in/check-out sessions, small groups, and classroom lessons. School counselors, educators, and administrators could include parents and caregivers in the practices happening at school and discuss practices that could be reinforced at home. Incorporating collaboration from multiple angles may support an overall culture shift from the contemplative practice as an “activity” toward contemplation as a shared value in the school community.
Given the findings, continuing to explore and assess the various avenues of contemplative practice as a mechanism of student social/emotional learning is important for school counseling scholars. School counselors should continue to research the approaches offered to students, particularly considering diverse students’ strengths and needs. School counseling outcome research is not only helpful for the field of school counseling but also for school communities and initiatives. When school counselors implement and evaluate the outcomes of specific approaches, they can be intentional about which practices should be integrated into their comprehensive school counseling programs. Further, rather than offering students a one-size-fits-all intervention, school counseling outcome research can provide insight into how an approach may or may not fit students in a school setting. Such information is critical as school counselors continue to enhance their delivery to students.
Limitations
This study is not without limitations. Although nonequivalent control group design is widely used in educational research and considered effective, its natural lack of randomization can be considered a limitation. Additionally, the ages of the participants ranged from 12 to 19 years old; therefore, variations in stages of development may have influenced the outcomes. Based on the alternative school sites’ structure of classrooms, in which grade levels overlapped, we elected to include all students enrolled at the school sites. A sample of participants within a closer age range might result in different findings. Further, instrumentation may also be considered a limitation of the study. All measures were self-reported, and no other data was gathered regarding students’ progress or outcomes. Observation data, attendance records, or behavioral reports might offer additional opportunities to measure change across the 4-week intervention. Self-report scales are limited in reliability due to social desirability. We selected self-report scales due to the introspective nature of the constructs; however, it is not possible to know if students’ reports are accurate representations of changes in their intrapersonal experiences.
Another limitation in instrumentation includes the scales selected for measurement. We selected brief scales out of consideration for developmental attention span and to reduce the possibility of participant fatigue. Yet, given the wide range of students’ ages, some participants may have fallen outside of the ages for which the scales were designed. Reliability analyses in our study indicated good internal consistency at all three time points for our sample for the BEIS-10 (Cronbach’s alpha of .83 [T1], .90 [T2], and .87 [T3]) and the CHS (Cronbach’s alpha of .83 [T1,], .86 [T2], and .85 [T3]), indicating that the scales demonstrated reliability regardless of the sample’s age range. However, instrumentation remains an area for consideration when interpreting the results.
Finally, the timing and duration of the intervention and survey implementation may also be considered a limitation. The intervention was implemented across 4 school weeks and the surveys were conducted at three time points; however, the time span between each survey was not equivalent due to the academic calendar. Surveys at T1 and T2 were 2 weeks apart, while surveys at T2 and T3 were 3 weeks apart. A week-long academic break occurred between T2 and T3, resulting in an interruption in practice for the treatment group. Interruptions due to holiday breaks, weather-related cancellations, and educators’ professional workdays are natural occurrences within the academic calendar. In future studies, planning the activity and survey implementation at a time with reduced interruptions or to extend the duration of the practice beyond 4 weeks may be beneficial.
Future Research
Future researchers may choose to replicate the study with randomization as opposed to the current study’s nonequivalent control group design. Randomization of treatment and control groups within school settings may offer different results. Further examination of an LKM practice with a larger sample size also may show more robust outcomes. In future research, reexamining LKM practices with youth and including more outcomes related to behavioral and relational factors could be helpful. All of the scales in the present study were self-reported; thus, future research should include parent- and teacher-report measures to evaluate behavioral results. Researchers may also seek to explore the impact of other types of contemplation on student outcomes outside of the LKM practice examined in the present study. Contemplative practices include a wide range of practices and influence various intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. Thus far, mindfulness has been the most commonly studied contemplative activity in schools. We selected an LKM practice to widen the lens of contemplation in schools, yet this is still just one of many existing contemplative practices and traditions. In future studies, researchers may find students’ input helpful to co-construct a contemplative curriculum and then measure its impact on students’ well-being. For example, school counseling practitioners and scholars can employ youth participatory action research, in which youth are involved in identifying social problems, brainstorming solutions, and investigating outcomes (Anyon et al., 2018). School counselors could follow a similar process of partnership with students to develop a contemplative intervention and evaluate its impact on student outcomes. Such research may provide more implications for contemplation as an element of school counseling practice and comprehensive school counseling program delivery for student outcomes.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a daily LKM practice would generate a statistically significant difference in reported levels of hope and emotional intelligence between a group of students engaged in the intervention compared to a waitlist control group. This study was one of the first to examine the impact of a brief, daily, school-based LKM practice on adolescents’ outcomes with a sample of alternative education students. Previous studies of LKM-based treatments on adult populations indicated positive influences on interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes. However, our findings were nonsignificant, with no significant difference between the treatment and waitlist control groups. A significant finding occurred with the inclusion of students’ reported frequency of practice with a large effect size. However, the groups at each level of frequency of practice were small and nonequivalent; therefore, these findings must be interpreted with caution. The present study provides insight into further exploring contemplation in schools; there is room to build upon the findings and investigate the impact of other contemplative practices on students’ interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes. Further research of contemplative activities in schools may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of school-based contemplative practices for youth.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Association for Creativity in Counseling; (2022 Student Research Grant).
